Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (6 SCC 294)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Xix, Kolkata vs. M/S Sanderson and Morgans

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…li Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 81 ITR 400 (All) and by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. (1974) ITR 582 (Del.) 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sundarm Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 294 (paras 13, 17) Hon’ble Supreme Court impliedly approved the principle laid down in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) as under:- “13. In the case of CIT v. Sandersons and Morgans principle of Morley v. Tattersall was applied. In that case, the question was whether interest received by a solicitor on the amounts belonging to his clients was taxable as hi…

ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashik Wollen Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which again allowed the appeal on other counts but on the above issue and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 294, sustained the view taken by the Commissioner. The Tribunal held as under: XXX 3. The present appellant can hardly drive any advantage from the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra). As in that case, a clear finding was recorded that the Assessee continued to pay interest at the rate of 6% for a period of 10 years and the agreement for purchase…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Kolkata vs. M/S.Soorajmull Nagarmull

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/46/2020HC Calcutta23 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 148Section 260ASection 41Section 41(1)

…e was placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta Versus Karam Chand and Others 8 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that when no demand for payment was made, 7 (1996) 6 SCC 294 8 (1996) 10 SCC 575 ITAT NO. 46 OF 2020 REPORTABLE Page 12 of 22 common sense requires that such amount should be entered into profit and loss account for the year and to be treated as taxab…

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 2241/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vs. M/s. Infinite Buildcon ACIT, Central Circle-5(4) Room No. 1927 Pvt. Ltd. 19th Floor 322, Commerce House Air India Building 140 N.M. Road Nariman Point Fort, Mumbai-40001. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AACC19980N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sashi Tulsiyan Department by Shri Santhil Kumaran Date of Hearing 05.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 31.8.2021 p…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Kolkata vs. Haldiram Bhujiwala Limited

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…li Cotton Mill (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 81 ITR 400 (All) and by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. (1974) ITR 582 (Del.) 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sundarm Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 294 (paras 13, 17) Hon’ble Supreme Court impliedly approved the principle laid down in Sandersons & Morgans (supra) as under:- “13. In the case of CIT v. Sandersons and Morgans principle of Morley v. Tattersall was applied. In that case, the question was whether interest received by a solicitor on the amounts belonging to his clients was taxable as hi…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Phosphates Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14Section 14A

…the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which again allowed the appeal on other counts but on the above issue and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 294, sustained the view taken by the Commissioner. The Tribunal held as under: "8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival parties. The assessee company had taken certain loan from M/s. P.S. Jain Motors. This amount was payable to them with interest of Rs.2,83,819/-. The party filed a suit for recovery and thereafter the assesse…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.